AME 40590 Intellectual Property for Engineers

Cases to add:

• Damages:
  • MINTZ V. DIETZ & WATSON, INC. (CAFC, May 2012)
  • Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 488 F.3d 973, 978-79 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
  • Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. US Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (SDNY 1970), modified, 446 F. 2d 295 (2d Cir. 1971)
  • The Boeing Company v. The United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 303 (April 2, 2009)
  • Mahurkar v. CR Bard, Inc. 79 F. 3d 1572, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996), adopting Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc.,575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978)
  • Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

• Software patents:
  • In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
  • CyberSource Corporation v. Retail Decisions, Inc., Slip Op. at 19 (2011)
  • Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2011)

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF CASES

• A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)
• Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 182 F.3d 1315 (1999)
• Alza Corp. v. Mylan Laboratories, 464 F.3d 1286, (2006)
• Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)
• Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336 (1961)
• Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053 (1992)
• Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 513 U.S. 179 (1994)
• Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al. (2013)
• Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al. CAFC (2012)
• Atlas Powder v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 750 F2d 1569 (1984)
• Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010)
• Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908)
• Bonito Boats. v. Thunder Craft, 489 U.S. 141 (1989)
• Bowman v. Monsanto, 133 S.Ct. 1761 (2013)
• CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, 288 F.3d 1359 (2002)
• Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574 (1990)
• D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp., 714 F.2d 1144 (1983)
• Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 100 S.Ct. 2204 (1980)
• Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)
• Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 (1881)
• Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu, 307 U.S. 5 (1939)
• Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Company, 97 U.S. 126 (1877)
• Filmtec Corp. v. Allied-Signal Inc., 939 F.2d 1568 (1991)
• Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. 333 U.S. 127 (1948)
• Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)
• Gould v. Hellwarth, 472 F2d 1383 (1973)
• Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)
• Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. 339 US 605 (1950)
• H.H. Robertson, Co. v. United Steel Deck, Inc., 820 F.2d 384 (1987)
• Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 11 (1850)
• Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375 (1986)
• i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (2010)
• In Re Bilski
  • In Re Bilski, Dky concurring opinion
  • In Re Bilski, Newman dissenting opinion
  • In Re Bilski, Mayer dissenting opinion
  • In Re Bilski, Rader dissenting opinion
• In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560 (1995)
• In re Carlson, 983 F.2d 1032 (1992)
• In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897 (1986)
• In re Kahn, CAFC 04-1616 (2006)
• In Re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350 (1998)
• J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001)
• Juicy Whip v. Orange Bang, 185 F.3d 1364 (1999)
• KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)
• Laboratory Corporation of America vs. Metabolite Laboratories, 548 U.S. 124 (2005)
• Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co., 167 F.2d 423 (1948)
• Lough v. Brunswick Corp., 86 F.3d 1113 (1996)
• Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)
• Metabolit Laboratories, Inc. and Competitive Technologies, Inc. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354 (2004)
• Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc., 153 F.2d 516 (1946)
• Microsoft Corp v. At&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007)
• Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152 (1978)
• Perkin-Elmer Corporation v. Computervision Corporation, 732 F2d 888 (1984)
• Pfaff vs. Wells Electronics, 525 U.S. 55 (1998)
• Philips Electric Co. v. Thermal Industries, Inc., 450 F.2d 1164 (1971)
• Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008)
• Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 285 F.2d 501 (1960)
• South Corp. v. US 690 F.2d 1368 (1982)
• State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (1998)
• Traffix Devices, Inc. vs. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001)
• TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111 (2001)
• UMC Electronics Co. v. U.S., 816 F.2d 647 (1987)
• US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)
• U.S. v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942)
• Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. American Gym Recreational & Athletic Equipment Corporation, Inc., 546 F.2d 530 (1976)
• Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 (1991)
• Warner-Jenkinson Company v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 US 17 (1997)
  • Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis Petitioner Brief
  • Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis Respondent Brief
• Winner International Royalty Co. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340 (2000)
• W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540 (1983)

INTRODUCTION

This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: INTRODUCTION

Outline:

• The main purpose for obtaining a patent is economic.
• It grants the exclusive right to make, use or sell the invention for a limited period of time.
• The governing law is Title 35 of the United States Code (35 USC).
• The governing regulations are from Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 CFR).
• The law is federal, so patent cases are resolved in the federal court system:
  • district courts;
  • circuit courts;
  • the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), a special appeals court for patent cases; and,
  • the Supreme Court.
• The US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) processes patent applications.
• Patents last for 20 years from the date the application is filed with the PTO.
• Patents have the attributes of personal property.
• The foundation of the federal government's authority to create a patent system is in the Constitution. The purposes is explicitly economic, "to promote the progress of science and useful arts..."
• Other forms of intellectual property
  • copyright;
  • trademarks; and,
  • trade secrets.

NONOBVIOUSNESS

This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: NONOBVIOUSNESS

Outline:

• This is perhaps the most difficult factual patent issue. In addition to meeting the novelty requirements of 35 USC 102, 35 USC 103 requires that the claimed invention as a whole must have been nonobvious "at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."
• There is a lot of historical confusion regarding this standard. Basically, it is a notion of something being meeting some type of sufficient inventive standard or nontriviality.
• To determine this, there are three fundamental lines of inquiry:
  • the scope and content of the prior art;
  • the differences between the prior art and claims at issue; and,
  • the level of ordinary skill in the art.
• Secondary considerations include:
  • a long-felt but unsatisfied need met by the invention;
  • appreciation by those versed in the art that the need existed;
  • substantial attempts to meet this need;
  • commercial success of the invention;
  • replacement in the industry by the claimed invention;
  • acquiescence by the industry;
  • teaching away by those skilled in the art;
  • unexpectedness of the results; and,
  • disbelief or incredulity on the part of industry with respect to the new invention.

INFRINGEMENT

This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: INFRINGEMENT

THE PATENT DOCUMENT

This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: THE PATENT DOCUMENT

Outline:

• A patent has several parts:
  • specification: describes the invention;
  • claims: delineates the ownership rights;
  • drawings: not required, but if they are included then any element included in the claims must be shown in the drawings; and,
  • other miscellaneous parts.
• Interpreting claims: claims are said to read on another device.
• The doctrine of equivalence, prevents something from being patented that only has minor alterations from the prior art.
• The date of the invention
  • reduction to practice;
  • diligence requirement.
• The file wrapper.

NOVELTY

This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: NOVELTY

Outline:

• Specified in 35 USC 102.
• Fundamentally: an invention must be new.
• Section 102 basically defines in a technical way what it means to not be new:
  • Events prior to invention
    • known or used by others in the US
    • patented or in a printed publication in another country
  • Events one year before filing the patent application
    • patented or in a printed publication anywhere (in this or a foreign country)
    • in public use or on sale in the US
  • Other bars
• The applicant must be the inventor (not the employer)

Outline:

• Literal Infringement
• The Doctrine of Equivalents

UTILITY

This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: UTILITY

PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER

This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER

Can computer programs, algorithms, laws of nature, life forms, plants, etc. be patented. In particular, are the following patentable:

• Plants
• Algorithms and Computer Programs
• Scientific Facts?

In a recent case

• State Street (1998)

the CAFC substantially broadened the subject matter of section 101 to include such things as methods of doing business, etc.

FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC PRIORITY

This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC PRIORITY

Outline:

• Priority in general
• Foreign priority
• International applications
• Domestic priority
• Provisional applications

THE PATENT APPLICATION

This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: THE PATENT APPLICATION

Outline:

• The Disclosure
• The Claims
• Other Sections
• New Matter
• The Examination Process

INVENTOR ELIGIBILITY

This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: INVENTOR ELIGIBILITY

GOTTSCHALK v. BENSON, 409 U.S. 63 (1972): full text

GOTTSCHALK v. BENSON, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981): (full text)

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)

Laboratory Corporation of America vs. Metabolite Laboratories, 548 U.S. 124 (2005): (full text)

Laboratory Corporation of America vs. Metabolite Laboratories, 548 U.S. 124 (2005)

METABOLITE LABORATORIES, INC. and Competitive Technologies, Inc. v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS (doing business as LabCorp): the CAFC case (full text)

ANTICIPATION

This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: ANTICIPATION

PRIOR ART

This is a summary. Click on the title for the full chapter: PRIOR ART

Pfaff v. Wells Electronics: full text

Perkin-Elmer Corporation v. Computervision Corporation (full text)

Perkin-Elmer Corporation v. Computervision Corporation